Taking the government to court over the smoking ban please help [Archive] - Green Grass Forums

Nepalese black

12-20-2006, 02:27 AM

Hi there all,

Not sure if I can do this, but we are all smokers and it is for a good reason, please moderators, please check our site out, we are really doing what I say but need help.

If some of you like me love a blow, then stroll down to your local bar for a few beers and cigarettes, next year the government are trying to stop us. We have worked out that not one person has died from passive smoke and no one has been harmed, and the smoking rates are up in Ireland and Scotland since the bars, if you want hard evidence of this please ask.

We have so much evidence, like smoking rates are down but cancer is on the rise, is all the diesel in the air and other pollutants, but the numbers of smokers have gone up in Ireland and Scotland since the bans came in.

http://freedom2choose.co.uk/news_scotland.php

Our new site is up and running, please please please could you donate, it would make our day, a Â£1 Â£10 Â£100, or even a Â£1000000 pounds, I hate asking for donations, not sure if I can on this site, sorry if I can't, but it is for a great thing, it's for the Judicial review to stop the UK Government from implementing the smoking ban in pubs and clubs, come on all lets put one over on the Government, lets show them ass's up, we actually had an amendment put in the house of Lords, it was for smoking rooms in pubs and good ventilation, 70 Lords voted for, but 215 against, when we win we will then help every country.

Here is a little bit from,

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/module...ticle&sid=3374

Speaking exclusively to the MA, their leader and spokesperson Robert Feal-Martinez said,
"We had a full consultation meeting last week with Swindler Gill of Omero's. "Mr Gill is a Judaical Review specialist and has indicated that we have a number of key areas on which to challenge the Government.
"We have devised an action plan and are currently collating the evidence ready to refer to our Barrister"

He went onto say that Mr. Gill has consulted with Richard Gordon QC a top civil rights Barrister who is keen to take on the case.
The man for us Martinez said: "Obviously we are delighted with this news, we identified Mr. Gordon early on as the man for us, and hopefully this will be the case."

Freedom to Choose now needs to raise the money for the case and would ask that any group, company or individual who can financially assist gets in touch.

Martinez said,"We have been writing to individual members of various trade bodies as we feel the executives of the main organizations have let their members down. We are getting more and more support."

He concluded by requesting that trade leaders now get involved, "Surely it's better for Pub's and brewers to donate a few thousand to our fight rather than spending millions which in the end we believe will not be necessary. Our legal team are confident we can win. So are we."

Nepalese black

weedmaster

12-20-2006, 07:00 AM

i think they r right to ban smoking in public places,and yes i do smoke

amberler

12-20-2006, 10:45 AM

i think they r right to ban smoking in public places,and yes i do smoke

I also agree with the smoking ban. The rights of non smokers to cleaner air far outweighs my right to force the breathe in my smoke and making their clothes smell.

If it was up to me the smoking ban would go even further than it does now.

And yes I smoke.

Nepalese black

12-22-2006, 01:33 AM

Hi there,

You two really surprise me, but totally respect your views. On all the other smoking forums we have had all for us, and they donate lots of money to our judicial review, come on potheads, please help us stay smoking in the pubs and clubs.

http://freedom2choose.co.uk/

But if you go you our site you will see we are pushing for separate smoking rooms and good ventilation, then the air will be very clean. But this is also about freedom of choose, they will not stop here, some places in the USA, they donâ??t allow you to smoke in parks, and this is about stopping the UK nanny state, they are trying to control us slowly, after the smoking, they are then going to focus on diet and health and drink.

They are spending and wasting 50million or more on this so called smoking ban, and that money should be used to save real lives, to buy new machines for hospitals, or it should be used to help the starving of this World, or be given to me to by more blow hehehe.

But there is a problem with the clean air issue, perfume, and as just about everyone drives a car, and every time you start it you contaminate the air big time, one hour drive in just one car put more pollutants in the air, than all the passive smoking has ever done,

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

MSP Patrick Harvie said spending 24 hours in Glasgow city centre was the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes. Oxford city centre has the worst air pollution in the country, according to a survey which compares inhaling the air there to smoking 61 cigarettes a day, so passive smoking is one big needle in one big haystack. So with all the toxins in the air, is a ban in bar and clubs, really worth all the time and money, as your breathing in toxins all day, the only difference with cigarettes, is you can â??seeâ? the smoke, when good ventilation could be far more useful. When good ventilation could be far more useful, and it can get rid of all the toxins in the air, I can prove evidence and links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4401628.stm

http://archive.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/2004/08/27/9214.html

David Attenborough program, the average family of four, with cars and homes produces â??40 TONESâ?; have to repeat that â??40 TONESâ? of toxic fumes each year from the petrol, diesel, electricity, gas and so forth, diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens.

As the Government keeps bring up numbers that stat anywhere from 600 to 6000 people die each year from passive smoking, BUT NO ONE DOES DIE, OR GET HARMED, IT'S A COVER UP OF ALL THE TOXIC FUMES IN THE AIR, as no one can name one person, no not "ONE", not the Government themselves no the UK statistics can not name one person, the BMJ can not name one person, no can the Office of Tobacco Control.

The names and address of these people, and the hospitals they went to treat them, as all hospitals keep records, and would have logged down how and what effects the second hand smoke did to these people, and also please name confirmed people that have been harmed because of second hand smoke, and the names and address of these people, and the hospitals they went to treat them, as all hospitals keep records, and would have logged down how and what effects the second hand smoke did to these people.

So why is all this money being wasted ??? When these millions could be used to save real lives, I am totally dumbfounded by the whole issue, as with all the pollutants in the every day air we all breath in, breathing in a little bit of passive smoke is so dame trivial, if your going to worry about passive smoke after breathing in all the pollutant and toxics in the air, it is like compeering passive smoke one very small needle and the air outside one very big haystack.

What if I tried to convince you of an illness, but could not produce one casualty, bet you would look at me as if I was dumb, that is what I/we look at you.

Nepalese black

2mass

12-22-2006, 06:11 AM

I totally disagree with the smoking ban in pubs and restaurants, smokers have rights 2 and I think that all public services should have a smoking section.
Having said that nepalise black I don`t think theres gonna be anything we can do 2 stop the smoking ban but good luck with it anyway.

Synthesizer Man

12-22-2006, 12:19 PM

MSP Patrick Harvie said spending 24 hours in Glasgow city centre was the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes. Oxford city centre has the worst air pollution in the country, according to a survey which compares inhaling the air there to smoking 61 cigarettes a day, so passive smoking is one big needle in one big haystack. So with all the toxins in the air, is a ban in bar and clubs, really worth all the time and money, as your breathing in toxins all day, the only difference with cigarettes, is you can â??seeâ? the smoke, when good ventilation could be far more useful. When good ventilation could be far more useful, and it can get rid of all the toxins in the air, I can prove evidence and links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4401628.stm

http://archive.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/2004/08/27/9214.html

Oxford City really is that bad. The funny thing is that no cars are allowed to drive right into the city centre. That means the only thing causing the pollution is the buses. High street was described as a huge bus park, and it is. Bus after bus after bus passes by, blowing fumes and hot air all over me. And not to mention the noise.

I'd prefer to have someone smoking next to me, than hot bus exhaust. I've had one cigarette today, no spliff yet, but need to go to the bank in town. If I smoke nothing else by the time I get back, I've smoked the equivalent of 62 cigarettes. :mad:

gildoiski

12-28-2006, 04:23 PM

Nepalese black

12-29-2006, 11:42 PM

the smoking ban has been active now in Scotland since may 06 and I for one think it's the best thing the government has done. I am a smoker of some 18 years but prefer the atmosphere of cleaner pubs.

It's also amazing how many hot women you can chat up when you're "banished outside"

I respect you for what each person thinks of this, but itâ??s more than just about the smoking ban, itâ??s about freedom of choose, the Government is trying to rule us, next you will have to smoke 10 yards from the pub, and not be allowed to smoke in parks, this is all ready happening in some stats in America, we need to stop it now, next it will be drink, then they will un-relax the cannabis laws again, please see the fill below last link, this country is turning into a communist country, with id cards on the way, cameras every where.

This email is being circulated to all who have pledged a donation,

Please please please a Â£1, Â£10, Â£50, or even a Â£1000000, come on people letâ??s stop this ban and put one over on the Government

Anyone who wants to join our forum please do, www.thebigdebate.org

As you may all ready know we have consulted with solicitors for the Judicial Review, Jaswinder Gill of Ormerods. "Mr Gill is a Judicial Review specialist who have said that our case merit and have agreed to take it on, that was back in August. If you want a full write up, on anything in particular, please say.

We will be going to see the solicitor again later in January and will, therefore, need to have the donations all cleared through the bank by that date in order that we can add to the client account.

Well, it is crunch time now guys and I need you to get your cheque books out or phone Bob with your debit/credit card numbers as soon as possible. Bob's details are as follows:-

Bob Feal-Martinez will be accepting and accounting for all monies received.

You will be able to donate either by Credit or Debit Card ( with the exception of Amec or Diners Card) by phoning Bob on 01793 822997.

Or please go to our new site and pay by Paypal, http://freedom2choose.co.uk Please say who you are and which site you are from, we can then thank you, if so some reason we canâ??t, I will now thank you in advancement, thank you

Alternatively, you can post cheques, made payable to R.Feal-Martinez or Jaswinder Gill of Ormerods at:-

The Carpenters Arms Motel
Old Vicarage Lane
South Marston
Swindon
Wiltshire
SN3 4ST

Many thanks to you all - without you we could not have got this far.

Here is some interesting reading, as people all over the country are stating to see the Government are using the smoking as a cover up, as the rise in cancer is diesel and the pollutants in the air,

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=132253&command=displayContent&sourceNode=128278&contentPK=16285569&folderPk=55091&pNodeId=126190

This is also about freedom of choice, see this, it, very frightening.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8130969589921300720&q=dispatches+stealing+your+freedom,

Wayne

MrGuyUK

12-31-2006, 02:49 PM

hmmm i dunno if im for or against the smoking ban. personally, i don't really like smokers (of cigs obviously) i dont understand how it can be justified. the cons of smoking outweigh the pro's.

But i'm for the freedom of choice. it's a good point that non cig smokers (like me) have the right for cleaner air, i think that does outweigh smokers rights to kill themselves. If they choose to do that, let them. Just stop spending millions on advertising telling them they're killing theirselves, they already know lol.

MrGuyUK

12-31-2006, 02:55 PM

Oh, and just to blow your arguement way out o the water.

I live in a village just outside Huddersfield. But the only famous thing we have attributed to us (apart from last of the summer wine being filmed around here) is Roy Castle. Just search his name in google. Do a quick read of his life, and then how he died. Passive smoking the "illness" Roy Castle the casualty:)

Not being arsy or anything, i wish you best of luck, and im all for freedom of choice etc. I dont realy want a public smoking ban, even though im against cigarette smoking. But you are lying to yourself and other making out that passive smoking and cigarette smoke isn't a danger.

HAPPYBUDDER

01-04-2007, 11:01 AM

B.Basher

01-05-2007, 03:39 PM

Makes perfect sense to me to ban cigarettes around food and drink. I don't smoke but my girlfriend does and I hate that shit. It's not a case of taking away the rights of others, it's simply reaching for more healthy public houses and places to socialise. Smoking is a shitty, pointless, negative habit and every little helps. You can still smoke, just get the fuck away from me and my sandwich.

Just my opinion though man :) . It's good to speak out.

mc-blaze21

01-26-2007, 11:23 AM

sorry guys but i think i agree with the smoking ban why should we put our smoke on other people that dont smoke. like basher said when im eating i dont want to be seeing and smelling some on else smoking next to me ya get me its just disgusting. and i smoke as well and this is how i feel so how do the poor fuckers that dont smoke feel. yeah my point exactly. oh and nepolise black please dont stereo type me i aint no pot head ok yeah i smoke weed but it dont make me a pot head so dont stereo type me ok im very supprised no one else picked up on that but hey its just probably me. any way thats my 2 pence worth peace!

Divadish

02-08-2007, 11:08 AM

I also agree with the smoking ban. The rights of non smokers to cleaner air far outweighs my right to force the breathe in my smoke and making their clothes smell.

If it was up to me the smoking ban would go even further than it does now.

And yes I smoke.

You're missing the point this is'nt about smoking persay but about freedom of
choice and the slow but steady erosion of our civil liberties in what we
laughingly call a democracy. Let me make a point, a week or so ago i was passing a local school at about 3.15 and outside the school lined up for over 100
yards were parents waiting in their vehicles (quite a few 4x4s) all but a few with
engines running creating a cloud of CARBON MONOXIDE you could barely see through, did i go over and bluntly tell them to switch off their engines ,no i crossed the road (still breathing in fumes by the way)and made my way.
Where were my rights to clean air that day.I have driven before but no longer
have a car(by choice) although public transport does suck.

amberler

02-08-2007, 04:04 PM

You're missing the point this is'nt about smoking persay but about freedom of
choice and the slow but steady erosion of our civil liberties in what we
laughingly call a democracy. Let me make a point, a week or so ago i was passing a local school at about 3.15 and outside the school lined up for over 100
yards were parents waiting in their vehicles (quite a few 4x4s) all but a few with
engines running creating a cloud of CARBON MONOXIDE you could barely see through, did i go over and bluntly tell them to switch off their engines ,no i crossed the road (still breathing in fumes by the way)and made my way.
Where were my rights to clean air that day.I have driven before but no longer
have a car(by choice) although public transport does suck.

Smoking and fumes from vehicles are two separate arguments though.

The smoking ban covers indoor or enclosed spaces somewhere fumes from vehicles don't tend to affect.

I agree though it is about freedom of choice but in this case, the two freedoms clash with each other. Not smoking doesn't harm anyone, unless you factor temper loss into it :P.

fasterspider

02-08-2007, 04:11 PM

Cigarettes should be banned period.
I smoked for 31 years and regret every one of those cigarettes. I was foolishly hooked on nicotene but, no more. Watching people smoke makes me sick to my stomach because they either do not know they are addicted or they know but are too much of a pussy to quit.
No good comes from cigarette smoking, none.

mad_nat

02-08-2007, 05:41 PM

as a smoker trying to qive up (yes i hate the fact that i started) but i dont agree with this ban. if you have a problem with smoking then dont sit next to a person that smokes simple as. but this aint gonna work i just reckon pubs and clubs are just gonna get more dangerous (imagane if someone leaves their drink to go for a fag). plus hows this gonna help decrease smokers if anything it will make you want to start more its like i said before if you tell someone not to do it or make it harder for someone to do they'll do it more and plus if you with a group of gang and your the only one that dont smoke your gonna hate being on your bill most of the time.

another thing i dont get how this will work at clubs for one some clubs take ages to get in to what u gonna do when you need a fag just go outside despite the fact you waited hours to get in in the first place and secondly any clubs themselves are fussy about letting you back in.

MrDank

02-08-2007, 05:54 PM

I respect you for what each person thinks of this, but itâ??s more than just about the smoking ban, itâ??s about freedom of choose, the Government is trying to rule us, next you will have to smoke 10 yards from the pub, and not be allowed to smoke in parks, this is all ready happening in some stats in America, we need to stop it now, next it will be drink, then they will un-relax the cannabis laws again, please see the fill below last link, this country is turning into a communist country, with id cards on the way, cameras every where.

i am NOT a cigarette smoker although i smoked cigarettes for 12 years.
i love the fact that i live in a state where people are NOT allowed to smoke indoors.
i CANNOT breathe around cigarette smoke when i go somewhere where cigarette smoke is predominant in the air i dont bitch about it but i do get sick, my clothes smell, etc...
cigarettes are disgusting and just an addiction.
i bet anyone who has smoked a pack a day for more than 5 years are only smoking because they CANT NOT smoke this is because cigarettes have very strong addictive properties even stronger than most drugs. the reason you dont want the smoking ban lifted is because you are an addicted cigarette smoker. how about this.
try to quit smoking cigarettes and enjoy the ban and the fresh air.

Divadish

02-10-2007, 06:18 PM

Wake up call cigarrettes cigarrettes arent killin the planet transport IS

Matt the Funk

02-10-2007, 07:48 PM

I think in the US, if you ask a smoker to stop smoking near you, he legally has to stop.I think that would be enough, if it was enforced.

weedmaster

02-11-2007, 06:59 AM

freedom of choice goes both ways,if youre an idiot like me and smoke thats your choice,if you choose to not smoke why should you have to inhale other peoples smoke,if your going to keep on about freedom of choice, i think that nonsmokers should have the freedom of choice,i think if thats one of your main points your on to a looser.

LIP

02-16-2007, 12:29 PM

I used to smoke, was on 40 a day for years. I think it's a good idea. And i'd still think the bans were a good idea if i was a smoker.

I'm not sure where you got your facts from, Nepalese Black, but i find it VERY hard to belive passive smoke isnt a cause of cancer. It's smoke, it contains carciogens, it's as bad as straight smoke imo.

Maybe what they should do is have the bars/restaurants split in half, one side smoking, one side not smoking, and the only thing between them is a door.

Still, i dont think your going to have much luck. It'd probably be better to give up now.

Divadish

02-16-2007, 03:47 PM

I agree with everyone about the health issue ,no one should have to breathe someone else's smoke and at the end of the day it can only make us healthier and live longer etc' by stopping smoking. But I chose to smoke Marijuana as i'm sure just about every else reading this thread as done and the way this bill /law has been pushed through, sometimes with some venom, just makes me think we've taken a step back in the fight for legalisation ? With the hysteria over cigarettes can you imagine the uproar in trying to overturn (not pass) an existing law with the label cannabis/marijuana or dare we even say it drugs attached to it , it aint gonna happen i personally think we needed to dance with the devil on this one but i'm afraid the devil ain't home at the moment he's down the pub havin a last cig with his pint.

Divadish

02-16-2007, 04:35 PM

I didn't want to sound selfish ( i could have gone on all day about the civil liberty issues) but this is first and foremost a cannabis site an it's why we're all herer lol

savagepossum

02-16-2007, 07:48 PM

i reckon people who smoke should grow there own tobacoo, its more cost effective, no radioactive particles and there is more nicotine in the 'untampered' plants it kinda works out just like growing your own weed is more efficient . Tobacco companys really are evil bastards.

mc-blaze21

02-20-2007, 10:04 AM

(open's the door looks for ecky thump and leaves)

BeforeYourTime

02-20-2007, 02:06 PM

If freedom of choice is allowed then what about the choices of non smokers?
If i choose to sit down for a meal in a public house i expect and choose for the air to be clean.
A smoker can quite easily leave the pub for a cig. A family sitting in for lunch dosnt want to have to sit outside in the doorway and eat cos some tw@ is polluting the air.
To put it simply, In My Opinion if you want to kill youself and others around you, then fek off elsewhere. Non smokers rights outweigh smokers tenfold.
Tobacco smoke smells disgusting to me. Would you like me to fart deadly gasses in your face while you eat? , Or even lay a deadly turd on a plate beside you?

Divadish

02-22-2007, 08:42 AM

byt, as posted earlier where are my rights (as a non driver) to clean air as i step out of my front door or walk down my local high street? i have none, i have to put up with it (or become a hermit). For gods sake all they want is somewhere warm with a roof just to go have a nasty cig every now and then. By the way b y t what's with the attitude and aggression ? sit back blaze one up and chill for 5 bro and as for the deadly gasses and turds try and grow up a bit eh ?

Tranquility

02-22-2007, 08:58 PM

about the gasses and turds yea thanks I just vomitted a little in my fucking mouth....

fucker you get a party foul for that shit. lol

iPot

02-25-2007, 12:38 AM

i think they r right to ban smoking in public places,and yes i do smoke

Pubs aren't public places though, they are indoors. Let's drive the smokers out onto the street where they can blow the smoke in my face. If i want to drink I put up with the smoke. If i want to breath fresh air I'll stay out of the pubs.

robert42

02-26-2007, 01:39 PM

there should be pubs for smokers

and pub for non smokers

Divadish

02-26-2007, 07:28 PM

HERE HERE

bradesbounty

03-16-2007, 04:19 PM

UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT THE LAW STATES NO PUBLIC BODY SHALL PERSECUTE AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON. THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT OF TO DAY HAVE PAST A LAW WHICH ONLY APPLYS IN SCOTLAND TO SAY YOU CANNOT SMOKE IN PUBLIC PLACES THIS LAW BREACHES THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND IS COMPLETELY ILLIGAL IT TAKES AWAY YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FREEDOM OF CHOICE. ALSO IF YOU SMOKE WEED AND YOU TAKE IT TO STOP PAIN OR IT IS PLEASING TO YOUR WELL BEING IT COMES UNDER A SECOND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT WHICH SAYS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FAMILY LIFE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PEACE IN YOUR OWN HOME YOU HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SUFFER AT THE HANDS OF GOVERNMENT OR POLICE REGIMES IT IS AGAINST THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT FOR ANY PUBLIC BODY TO CAUSE MENTAL OR PHYSICAL SUFFERING TO YOU, TONY BLAIR HAS DONE WHAT MAGGIE THATCHER DID WITH THE POLE TAX SHE TRIED IT OUT FOR A YEAR IN SCOTLAND FIRST BECAUSE SHE NEW ALL THE SCOTTISH MPS WERE ASS HOLES ,.>TONY BLAIR HAS DONE THE SAME WITH THE CIGS LAW ITS ONLY ON TRIAL IN SCOTLAND. TO FINISH I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY I DONT SMOKE CIGS. BUT THE CORRECT WAY TO GO FORWARD IS TO BE FAIR TO NONE SMOKERS AND HAVE PUBS THAT WANT SMOKING TO GET A LICENCE TO SMOKE ,SAME WITH HOTELS CAFES ETC THEN IF YOU DONT LIKE SMOKING DONT GO IN >" FIND SOMEWERE ELSE THAT DO NOT HAVE NO SMOKING VERY SIMPLE
TONY BLAIRS ANSWER TO THIS WAS WHAT ABOUT THE STAFF WHO HAVE TO WORK IN A SMOKEY PUBS ETC THE ANSWER TO THIS IS FIND A JOB IN A NONE SMOKING PUB ETC. THATS WHATS CALLED EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER TONY BLAIRS EQUAL RIGHTS ACT ... BE HAPPY:rastasmoke:

Not sure if I can do this, but we are all smokers and it is for a good reason, please moderators, please check our site out, we are really doing what I say but need help.

If some of you like me love a blow, then stroll down to your local bar for a few beers and cigarettes, next year the government are trying to stop us. We have worked out that not one person has died from passive smoke and no one has been harmed, and the smoking rates are up in Ireland and Scotland since the bars, if you want hard evidence of this please ask.

We have so much evidence, like smoking rates are down but cancer is on the rise, is all the diesel in the air and other pollutants, but the numbers of smokers have gone up in Ireland and Scotland since the bans came in.

Freedom To Choose News, Scotland (http://freedom2choose.co.uk/news_scotland.php)

Our new site is up and running, please please please could you donate, it would make our day, a Â£1 Â£10 Â£100, or even a Â£1000000 pounds, I hate asking for donations, not sure if I can on this site, sorry if I can't, but it is for a great thing, it's for the Judicial review to stop the UK Government from implementing the smoking ban in pubs and clubs, come on all lets put one over on the Government, lets show them ass's up, we actually had an amendment put in the house of Lords, it was for smoking rooms in pubs and good ventilation, 70 Lords voted for, but 215 against, when we win we will then help every country.

Here is a little bit from,

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/module...ticle&sid=3374

Speaking exclusively to the MA, their leader and spokesperson Robert Feal-Martinez said,
"We had a full consultation meeting last week with Swindler Gill of Omero's. "Mr Gill is a Judaical Review specialist and has indicated that we have a number of key areas on which to challenge the Government.
"We have devised an action plan and are currently collating the evidence ready to refer to our Barrister"

He went onto say that Mr. Gill has consulted with Richard Gordon QC a top civil rights Barrister who is keen to take on the case.
The man for us Martinez said: "Obviously we are delighted with this news, we identified Mr. Gordon early on as the man for us, and hopefully this will be the case."

Freedom to Choose now needs to raise the money for the case and would ask that any group, company or individual who can financially assist gets in touch.

Martinez said,"We have been writing to individual members of various trade bodies as we feel the executives of the main organizations have let their members down. We are getting more and more support."

He concluded by requesting that trade leaders now get involved, "Surely it's better for Pub's and brewers to donate a few thousand to our fight rather than spending millions which in the end we believe will not be necessary. Our legal team are confident we can win. So are we."

Nepalese black[/QUOTE]

mattmao

03-16-2007, 04:38 PM

NEPALEESE i will back you all the way.once again the goverment has taken away freedom of choise!!i have many friends who own there own bars,they as a group approched the goverment to see if the could turn there pubs into smoking only pubs,which would still leave freedom of choise,ifyou smoke there is a public house for yoy,and if you dont there will also be public houses to accomodate you.so everyone still has a choise and nobody is being dictated to!!good luck and may the force be with you!!
by the way the goverment would not entertain the idea of smoking omly pubs!!

bluerasta

03-17-2007, 12:22 PM

whats the problem i understand the freedom off choice , i smoke but have no problem with going outside for a smoke,no one is allowed to smoke in my house, don`t care if its pissing down with rain, got young kids and it makes the house smell shit, respect those who don`t smoke,
anyway smoking outside is better, go for a walk take in the view.
eaaasy

plymouth stoner

03-17-2007, 03:32 PM

it should b down 2 the landlord of the pub if u ask me, so ok they serve food n they'l have 2 sort sumfin out! i think they should ban fags in public but allow weed spliffs cuz they smell lovely,plus evry1 can chill the f@ck out!

Nepalese black

04-01-2007, 03:14 PM

Hi there all,

We are;

Freedom To Choose (http://freedom2choose.co.uk/)

Thx for all the support, and yes this is about freedom to choose, come on lets put one over on the Government, for Gods sake stand up for your rights, as most of the British public are damn apathetic, and I also respect the people that have different views,

We have made contact with the organiser of the Shisha Bar campaign which hit the news last week. We are getting together early next week to try and pool resources as he has also instructed council to go for a JR on their behalf. He had never heard of us and was very excited by the prospect of fighting this together. Let us hope that a few rich Arabs are standing in the background ready to fling a few thousand barrels of oil at us!!
This may also be a good opportunity to show that Muslims and Brits can fight together for their cultures.

WE NEED DONATIONS AS WE HAVE THE FINAL three hour consolation with the solicitor and barrister to ensure that our case is as water tight, please just a Â£1, Â£10, Â£100 or even Â£1000000.

IN MY POSTING I NOT SURE IF I MADE MYSELF CLEAR, but what we are lobbying for and taking the UK Government to court for is â??NOTâ? to stop the smoking ban, â??butâ? for an amendment, which would allow separate smoking rooms with filtration and ventilation, this is fair and non-biased, like the old days, or as someone said be down to the landlord, that is the way in Spain, please see the below, on the more smokers when there are smoking bans.[/quote]

Most young people think becoming a smoker is the norm
Cancer Research UK : Most young people think becoming a smoker is the norm (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/pressreleases/2007/march/305257)
And too see gangs of people smoking outside will make this far worst, as it is in other countries.

New Zealand smoke more after the ban
Scoop: Smoking Prevalence Falling Too Slowly (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0612/S00091.htm)

Italians smoking more despite national ban
SignOnSanDiego.com > News > World -- Italians smoking more despite national ban (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070130-0636-italy-smoking-.html)

Spain: Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs and there are 1/2 million less smoking, because they allow smoking in the pubs
Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs: poll (http://www.tobacco.org/news/239087.html)

New York has a bar smoking ban, so Smoker Numbers Rise,
Smoker Numbers Rise, but Mayor Lauds Other City Statistics - September 15, 2006 - The New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/article/39753)

Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers after the ban,
Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers (http://freedom2choose.co.uk/news1.php?id=39)

Smoking rates up in Scotland,
Smoking ban 'a triumph of propaganda over science' says Imperial as sales and profits rise | Business | Money | Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/11/01/cnsmoking01.xml)

Pubs now gone bust = 1,000+.

Jobs lost by the beginning of last summer = 12,000 (more now).

At least 20,000 more smokers in Ireland now then there would have been if the ban had not taken place.

Gallagher tobacco have announced for two years running a 4% increase in profits.

R.J. Carroll have also announced a rise in profits.

A thriving and booming black market in tobacco products which the Irish government is unable to control.

More young people smoking.

Loads of adapted outdoor areas plus countless secret back rooms and lock-ins.

Cancer on the rise.

Children are victims of smoking ban, says study
Scotsman.com News - Tobacco - Children are victims of smoking ban, says study (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=663&id=341192007)
Children's passive smoking increases after pub bans

The Publican - number one for licensed trade news, and Proud of Pubs - Home - Children's passive smoking increases after pub bans (http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=54426&c=1)

And there is not one name of a sinlge person who has been harmed or died by passive smoke.

This has actually gone thought the Houses of Parliament and we had 70 votes for and 210 against, that is why we applied for a Judicial Review.

ANYONE WANT STUDIES PROVING SHS SMOKE IS HARMLESS PLEASE SAY

Nepalese black

orgasmic

04-04-2007, 09:29 PM

'come on potheads'

are you just here to advertise to us just because you think we will agree?

orgasmic

04-05-2007, 04:55 PM

I think in the US, if you ask a smoker to stop smoking near you, he legally has to stop.I think that would be enough, if it was enforced.

i can imagine a LOT of fights over this.........

Nepalese black

04-05-2007, 11:55 PM

If anyone wants to help they can donate here; Freedom To Choose (http://freedom2choose.co.uk/)

And please donâ??t say you will do it later, as I used to be like that, that way things never get done, and please do it right now, if you value your freedom and what to stop this dictatorship.

In one way I am here to advertise, as we are all smokers of tobacco, and I donâ??t think there is anyone here who likes to be told what to do with their lives, and that is exactly what the Government is trying to do. I mean in some, (only some mind you) US states, you canâ??t smoke in parks, beaches, you have to be ten meters away from all public places, and this will happen here, as who though ten to twenty years ago smoking would be banned in pubs, and cannabis would be legal in the UK, if you said that in a pub them many years ago they would look at you daft, now look what someone is saying for the year 2008, and this time I am not laughing.

Itâ??s not going to stop at smoking;

Three drinks and you're out: the pub rationing plan

ONE of Britainâ??s leading surgeons has called on the government to introduce curbs on the sale of alcohol, limiting the amount that customers can consume per visit to a pub or bar. Next will be how much and what foods you eat.

John Smith, president of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, believes that such restrictions would be the logical next step to improving the nationâ??s health following the ban on smoking in public buildings.

Smith believes regulations in Britain could save lives while cutting alcohol-related illnesses and violent crime.

â??The legislation to ban smoking in public places is very welcome and a big step forward. The logical thing to recognise now is that smoking is bad for you, as is alcohol,â? he said.

â??Should we now limit the amount of drink that can be served in pubs? If, as a nation, we are serious about trying to prevent illnesses associated with social habits, then this is something that must be considered seriously.

â??I think for a government to follow the American model of saying, for the benefit of each patron, we will provide two drinks only, would be very interesting to look at.â?
We all would need an ID card, and it would me marked, so if you had two drinks in one bar, you would not be able to have anymore in another bar.

Restrictions already operate in some American states. The city council in Santa Monica, California, has powers to impose a two-drink ban in bars while voluntary schemes operate in Virginia, Oregon and Massachusetts.

Last week the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice), which advises on the cost effectiveness of providing treatment on the National Health Service, said patients who endangered their health by smoking, gross overeating or heavy drinking should be denied medical treatment.

Currently guidelines recommend that men should drink no more than three units a day, which is the equivalent of two pints of beer, two glasses of wine or three measures of spirits. Women are advised to drink no more than two units.

Smith, who hopes his views will become the collegeâ??s policy, said that it was up to ministers to decide on the practicalities of a ban.

â??I realise that not everyone is likely to agree with this and there will be those who will claim it would be another example of the nanny state,â? he said.

â??I also realise that the implications commercially for hotels and publicans would be huge, because we all know that they make a lot of their money through mark-ups on drink. But it is the logical follow-up to banning smoking in pubs and other public places. As a wine lover I would be prepared to lead by example.â?

Please all we want is separate smoking rooms with ventilation and filtration, itâ??s fair, non-biased, and the best all round situation, so anyone like to donate ??? Or are you one of the nanny state lovers, however if you do support this ban, we all have a right to our opinions.

Wayne

skinup

04-11-2007, 03:54 AM

[color=red]WE NEED DONATIONS, please just a Â£1, Â£10, Â£100 or even Â£1000000.

I've skimmed through this thread and all I see if you asking us for money on every post - What is this, links for sale? Canny get a scam goin on the new boards now unlike the old for sale days. Fags kill you nutter!

LIP

04-11-2007, 12:19 PM

I think all this effort should be used to get weed legal - tobacco doesnt deserve any money being spent on it - and i used to be a 40 a day./

Divadish

05-02-2007, 10:54 AM

PsychoticEpisode

05-02-2007, 01:45 PM

I've been smoking for over twenty years now. I don't smoke around non-smokers any more and go outside to smoke at home. I absolutely support the ban on smoking in public places, smokers have a right to damage their own health, if they still want the nicotine in public they can chew gum or put on patches.

PsychoticEpisode

05-02-2007, 01:50 PM

Now that tobacco is effectively illegal in public places (except when there is clear sky above you i.e. no roof ) does anyone in their right mind think that the government is actually going to overturn an existing law and legalise weed

I don't think that legalisation of weed is remotely likely for the forseable future in the UK. If it ever does happen though, a public smoking ban would be essential. I don't want to be wandering around the town centre with my family with idiots smoking weed on every corner trying to steer them away from the clouds of smoke.

If any kind of smoking was allowed in public places and cannabis was decriminalised, this would happen.

amberler

05-02-2007, 02:46 PM

I don't think that legalisation of weed is remotely likely for the forseable future in the UK. If it ever does happen though, a public smoking ban would be essential. I don't want to be wandering around the town centre with my family with idiots smoking weed on every corner trying to steer them away from the clouds of smoke.

If any kind of smoking was allowed in public places and cannabis was decriminalised, this would happen.

Too true I am afraid.

In the summer my local pub is like an Amsterdam Coffee Garden. Landlord does not mind though he sells a lot of food.

Nightcrewman

05-03-2007, 09:57 AM

I enjoy guns always have done but my freedom of choice is restricted to where I can use them.
I also enjoy scratching my arse but would you want me doing it in front of you as you are having lunch in a resturant.

QUOTE
" if you have a problem with smoking then dont sit next to a person that smokes simple as that"

Does that apply to my statement "If you dont want to get shot then dont come near me when I have a gun"

Cheers NCM

PS Right, I am off to vote now,

Divadish

05-03-2007, 11:39 AM

Licensed premises a'la pubs/clubs for consumption of tobacco and cannabis related products keeping smokers off the streets out of view of the kids.We banned tobacco advertising so as not to influence children but come July kids will see adults smoking more than ever before due to smokers being forced on to the streets as they have no where else to go . My next point is this...i do not have a car ( by choice ) but my next door neighbour has three (one a 4x4 ) when they get into their cars i don't mouth off about my right to clean air ( incidentally pollution induced asthma in children is higher than ever and still rising) no i go my way realising that in a supposed democracy we all have freedom of choice (apparently) some might say a tenuous argument but to me a very valid one none the less. And one final point , the smoking ban will not cover everywhere as the houses of parliament will not come under this ban, yes the only ones who will be able to smoke in licensed premises will be the people who passed this legislation in the first place , how's that for bigotry. I agree with some of you on one point and that is i also do not see decriminalisation of cannabis for a long time so it looks like we will all be skulking around in the shadows for the next 20 years.

Nightcrewman

05-03-2007, 12:14 PM

Sounds good to me but highly unlikely to succeed as our goverment is totaly incapable of thinking sensibly, vote today to change things.

Cheers NCM

"IN MY POSTING I NOT SURE IF I MADE MYSELF CLEAR, but what we are lobbying for and taking the UK Government to court for is â??NOTâ? to stop the smoking ban, â??butâ? for an amendment, which would allow separate smoking rooms with filtration and ventilation, this is fair and non-biased,"

amberler

05-03-2007, 02:47 PM

"IN MY POSTING I NOT SURE IF I MADE MYSELF CLEAR, but what we are lobbying for and taking the UK Government to court for is â??NOTâ? to stop the smoking ban, â??butâ? for an amendment, which would allow separate smoking rooms with filtration and ventilation, this is fair and non-biased,"

If pubs etc had got their arses into gear and done this already then maybe the smoking ban wouldn't have been so far reaching.

On the plus side nipping out the pub for a 'smoke' is now going to look for less suspicious.

meds02093

05-03-2007, 08:52 PM

There will be more risks of beers getting spiked as here in Wales you are not allowed to take the glass out with you.. there was a story recently in a pub here by me that a man went out to smoke then went back in, drank his beer, went out and fell on the floor.. police came to arrest him until later they found he was having a fit and was not drunk. He is now in intensive care.

PsychoticEpisode

05-04-2007, 06:11 PM

I'm a smoker, and I totally support the ban on public smoking. There's no argument and any attempt to fight against it using human rights legislation is doomed to be an expensive failure.

The whole argument put by the OP sounds like a feeble attempt by the tobacco and alcohol industries to protect their income. The fact that the registrant of the "freedom to choose" web site has chosen to hide their identity does little to dispel this suspicion.

Divadish

05-05-2007, 08:08 AM

PsychoticEpisode

05-06-2007, 02:39 AM

I think people are missing the point , the argument is not about the right to smoke in public but for designated premises to be established where like minded people can go and enjoy a cigarette/cigar/pipe and who knows maybe one day a spliff in peace and comfort ( a private smokers club if you like ). Now think about it .. is that really such a bad thing .. ?

I've just checked, and the OP was specifically talking about smoking in public bars. The legislation being passed won't stop people from smoking in private houses.

Having somewhere to go to have a spliff in town wouldn't be such a bad thing, but cannabis prohibitionists seem to have the media and the politicans on their side in the UK, the press (with the exception of the Guardian) are all calling for cannabis to be re-classified as a class B. There's every chance that cannabis prohibition will be stepped up and little to no chance of legalisation in the forseable future.

Divadish

05-07-2007, 10:17 AM

Of course you will be able to smoke in private houses , the day this government starts to try and dictate what we do behind our own front doors is the day i sell up and ship out . In the next 20/30/40 years when literally 10's of millions of people are facing starvation , are on the move as refugees due to flooding , and civil unrest has broken out in ( supposedly ) democratic countries due to food and energy shortages our kids and grand kids will look back and think why weren't our parents / grandparents doing anything about it, sorry we were too busy dealing with second hand smoke . Honestly if people were as passionate about the environment as they were about banning smoking we could take some serious steps towards securing some sort of future for forthcoming generations , instead we will be seen as a laughing stock for those left picking up the pieces ( not that there will be much to laugh about by then ) . This is my last post on this subject as the words head and brick wall are starting to spring to mind ( no offence ).

PsychoticEpisode

05-08-2007, 10:46 AM

the day this government starts to try and dictate what we do behind our own front doors is the day i sell up and ship out .

As far as I know, they do tell us that we can't smoke cannabis behind our front doors. Unless they've changed the law and not told me. Bon voyage..........

Divadish

05-08-2007, 02:39 PM

So you are a Daily Mail reader ah ah enough said

ukmonkey

05-08-2007, 03:27 PM

This is bullshit. I'm a smoker and no I'm not looking forward to the ban but it has to be a good thing.

Nepalese black

05-08-2007, 11:40 PM

Now that tobacco is effectively illegal in public places (except when there is clear sky above you i.e. no roof ) does anyone in their right mind think that the government is actually going to overturn an existing law and legalise weed .... not a fu"*in chance . We needed tobacco out in the open to use as a yardstick to point out the relative harmlessness of MJ in comparison to tobacco.I also think that some of you are missing the point ,no one is actually bigging up cigs it,s the freedom of choice that,s being fought for,anyway i could go on for ages about the civil liberty issues but i'll be going over things i've posted before.One last point,my grandfather survived the D-day landings and since my grandmother died does not have much of a life apart from going to his local working mens club 3 times a week for a few pints and cigs, as of July 1st this will no longer be possible due to the ban and to think this gentleman put his life on the line in the name of democracy.

Hi Davadish,

Glad there are some here that understand, as next they will â??tryâ? and I mean try, try and make it illegal to smoke 10 meters from any pub or public place, try and stop you smoking, fags or blow in parks, beaches or nearly anywhere that the public go, so us potheads need to stick together over this, thatâ??s why this Government has to be stopped, as no one can dictate to me how to live my life, damn fing check.

I know we canâ??t do what I am about to say but feel like saying it anyway;

Lets Just ask the Judge in the JR, all we ask for is separate smoking rooms, with ventilation and filtration, in pubs and clubs, where we can smoke in piece, is this to much to ask for, for Gods sake, how can any MP and Lord be so damn selfish, spiteful, biased, childlike, non-logical, and un-professional and break their own code of practise, no wonder they get attack by terrorists, as they do not think right, the MPâ??s seem to make all the wrong decisions, why ??? And why are they there, are they real people or computer programs, programmed to be against the right decisions and against the people, there should be a full revolution to remove 80% of them.

And ask each and every Lord that voted against the smoking rooms why they voted against, love to have them all at the JR, and ask them that without any warning, I wonder what they would say, as they would be put on the spot.

Then state one of to other things, like all the Countries with blanket bans have higher smoking rates because of this, but Spain with a ban but not in the pubs has a lower rate of smokers.

Our main studies proving passive smoking is just about harmless.

Ventilation works.

More smoking in the homes, where the alleged passive smoking hits the children.

Pubs will stay open.

Hospitals should be receiving the 50Million that they have spent on this ban, for the people that are waiting for live threatening operations.

All I want is a happy and quite life, I did not want is this, but now I have wasted one year on my computer finding out all about the huge ridiculous conspiracy against the smokers, and am not amused, I love life love to use my computer for other things, but hardily have the time for these things now, and have put up money for the JR, when all we ask is a damned smoking room.

For Gods sake if there are any antis, anti smokers of anything, or any MPâ??s or Lords here reading this grow up as you antis are very odd fanatical people that need help, please you are totally wasting your life doing all this, please go away and forget all about this, and ask for a little help, as you pollute the air a Billion Billion Billion more times than I will in my whole life with my passive smoking, in lets say 4 hours travelling in your car, find a life, you have totally brainwashed yourself, you need some time away, perhaps a holiday, they say Pluto is nice this time of year, it take 9 1/2 years to get to Pluto in a spaceship, however for you people I suggest a airliner to Pluto, the trip would take no more than 800 years, and I have a funny feeling I would have kicked the habit by then, hehehe. Then we could all live happily after.[/quote]

Wayne

Nepalese black

05-08-2007, 11:49 PM

As far as I know, they do tell us that we can't smoke cannabis behind our front doors. Unless they've changed the law and not told me. Bon voyage..........

Yes they have changed the Cannabis Laws, it was about three years ago.

Home Office | Cannabis reclassification (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/cannabis-reclassification/)

I know someone very well that was in the Drug Squad up in London, ad basically if your sitting down in public smoking blow and bothering no-one they will let you carry on, same if there are a load of you in the house smoking blow, basically they will turn a blind eye, as they donâ??t want to do the paper work, however it all depends on the way you look and dress.

Wayne

amberler

05-09-2007, 09:32 AM

Yes they have changed the Cannabis Laws, it was about three years ago.

Home Office | Cannabis reclassification (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/cannabis-reclassification/)

I know someone very well that was in the Drug Squad up in London, ad basically if your sitting down in public smoking blow and bothering no-one they will let you carry on, same if there are a load of you in the house smoking blow, basically they will turn a blind eye, as they donâ??t want to do the paper work, however it all depends on the way you look and dress.

Wayne

Here say, not fact.

amberler

05-09-2007, 09:39 AM

Hi Davadish,

Glad there are some here that understand, as next they will â??tryâ? and I mean try, try and make it illegal to smoke 10 meters from any pub or public place, try and stop you smoking, fags or blow in parks, beaches or nearly anywhere that the public go, so us potheads need to stick together over this, thatâ??s why this Government has to be stopped, as no one can dictate to me how to live my life, damn fing check.

I know we canâ??t do what I am about to say but feel like saying it anyway;

Lets Just ask the Judge in the JR, all we ask for is separate smoking rooms, with ventilation and filtration, in pubs and clubs, where we can smoke in piece, is this to much to ask for, for Gods sake, how can any MP and Lord be so damn selfish, spiteful, biased, childlike, non-logical, and un-professional and break their own code of practise, no wonder they get attack by terrorists, as they do not think right, the MPâ??s seem to make all the wrong decisions, why ??? And why are they there, are they real people or computer programs, programmed to be against the right decisions and against the people, there should be a full revolution to remove 80% of them.

And ask each and every Lord that voted against the smoking rooms why they voted against, love to have them all at the JR, and ask them that without any warning, I wonder what they would say, as they would be put on the spot.

Then state one of to other things, like all the Countries with blanket bans have higher smoking rates because of this, but Spain with a ban but not in the pubs has a lower rate of smokers.

Our main studies proving passive smoking is just about harmless.

Ventilation works.

More smoking in the homes, where the alleged passive smoking hits the children.

Pubs will stay open.

Hospitals should be receiving the 50Million that they have spent on this ban, for the people that are waiting for live threatening operations.

All I want is a happy and quite life, I did not want is this, but now I have wasted one year on my computer finding out all about the huge ridiculous conspiracy against the smokers, and am not amused, I love life love to use my computer for other things, but hardily have the time for these things now, and have put up money for the JR, when all we ask is a damned smoking room.

For Gods sake if there are any antis, anti smokers of anything, or any MPâ??s or Lords here reading this grow up as you antis are very odd fanatical people that need help, please you are totally wasting your life doing all this, please go away and forget all about this, and ask for a little help, as you pollute the air a Billion Billion Billion more times than I will in my whole life with my passive smoking, in lets say 4 hours travelling in your car, find a life, you have totally brainwashed yourself, you need some time away, perhaps a holiday, they say Pluto is nice this time of year, it take 9 1/2 years to get to Pluto in a spaceship, however for you people I suggest a airliner to Pluto, the trip would take no more than 800 years, and I have a funny feeling I would have kicked the habit by then, hehehe. Then we could all live happily after.

Wayne[/QUOTE]

Again a lot of opinion posted as fact.

Most people agree with the smoking ban. Even if passive smoking wasn't dangerous as you claim, despite the fact there are numerous reports and studies claiming otherwise people still should not have to be forced to go home with itchy eyes and smelly clothes.

Give it a few years and you will get used to it.

If ventilation works so well why didn't pubs install adequate ventilation in the first place? This could all have been avoided.

PsychoticEpisode

05-09-2007, 07:28 PM

So you are a Daily Mail reader ah ah enough said

That makes about as much sense as everything else you've said.

Divadish

05-10-2007, 05:39 PM

P E don't be so touchy mate , chill out and roll one up it is after all why we are all herer in the first place lol

PsychoticEpisode

05-13-2007, 09:33 AM

P E don't be so touchy mate , chill out and roll one up it is after all why we are all herer in the first place lol
The I suggest you take your own advice 'cos your protest is going nowhere. Standing on the beach trying to stop the tide from coming in is not a chilled out activity.

Divadish

05-15-2007, 11:29 AM

I am king Canute lol

Nepalese black

05-16-2007, 12:01 AM

Here say, not fact.

Sorry this is fact.

Nepalese black

Nepalese black

05-16-2007, 12:11 AM

Again a lot of opinion posted as fact.

Most people agree with the smoking ban. Even if passive smoking wasn't dangerous as you claim, despite the fact there are numerous reports and studies claiming otherwise people still should not have to be forced to go home with itchy eyes and smelly clothes.

Give it a few years and you will get used to it.

If ventilation works so well why didn't pubs install adequate ventilation in the first place? This could all have been avoided.

What opinions that I posted do you think are not facts.

I not think there are many that go home with itchy eyes and smelly clothes, I mean for 99.9% of non-smokers most 5 years ago before all this came up did not even care or notice that people smoked, and I can never understand the smelly cloths thing, I mean who picks up their cloths in the morning to smell them, I pick them up and just wash them because of my own body odder on them, however if you read my posts again, when we go into the court rooms against the Government, we are only after separate smoking rooms with ventilation and filtration.

Itâ??s not the point in getting used to it, itâ??s the Government trying to do what they think is best, WHEN THEY SHOULD BE HELPING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WAITING FOR LIVE SAVING OPERATIONS, and when they donâ??t know much about it, and itâ??s backfired in every way, over a 1000 bas shut in Ireland,

New Zealand smoke more after the ban,

Scoop: Smoking Prevalence Falling Too Slowly (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0612/S00091.htm)

Italians smoking more despite national ban,

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > World -- Italians smoking more despite national ban (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070130-0636-italy-smoking-.html)

Spain: Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs and there are 1/2 million less smoking;

THERE 1/2 MILLION LESS SMOKING IN SPAIN ??? WHEN ALL OTHER PLACES THE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING FAR MORE, BECAUSE SPAIN LETS YOU SMOKE IN THE BARS AND CLUBS.

Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs: poll (http://www.tobacco.org/news/239087.html)

New York has a bar smoking ban, so Smoker Numbers Rise,

Smoker Numbers Rise, but Mayor Lauds Other City Statistics - September 15, 2006 - The New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/article/39753)

Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers after the ban,

Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers (http://freedom2choose.co.uk/news1.php?id=39)

Smoking rates up in Scotland,

Smoking ban 'a triumph of propaganda over science' says Imperial as sales and profits rise | Business | Money | Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/11/01/cnsmoking01.xml)

Children are victims of smoking ban, says study
Scotsman.com News - Tobacco - Children are victims of smoking ban, says study (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=663&id=341192007)
Children's passive smoking increases after pub bans

The Publican - number one for licensed trade news, and Proud of Pubs - Home - Children's passive smoking increases after pub bans (http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=54426&c=1)

DIRECT MEASUREMENT read-outs from BC AirCare laboratories indicate that vehicular emissions 1995 in the Vancouver's Lower Mainland amount to 324,500 tons, or 2 pounds per person per day. How does that compare with 0.5 millionth of a gram per cubic foot of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in a normally ventilated room?

Vehicular emissions have far more toxic substances then cigarettes, they are the real cause for the higher cancer rates UK Government statistics from 1970 to 2006 show smoking is in decline worldwide. in 1970, 45% of the UK smoked, now in 2006, only 25% smoke, that is means the total smokers in the UK in the last 36 years has nearly halved, HOWEVER cancer is on the rise, Between 1971 and 2003, the age-standardised incidence of cancer increased by around 17 per cent in males and 40 per cent in females.

So we wonder why do the Government waste all these Millions on a smoking ban itâ??s over 50Million, when the N.H.S needs it so so bad please please please, lets help save lives and buy new machines for the Hospitals, and remember there are people out the waiting for life saving operations, and not one person can be named that has been harmed by passive smoke, and someone dieing from passive smoke is a joke, well actually itâ??s not, this whole political propaganda of the passive smoke is a total disgrace, when there are so many dieing around the World, with all the money that has been wasted on the passive smoke rubbish, we could most properly eradicated most of the diseases like cancer.

Departments: Advertising: 17 Apr 2007: Written answers (TheyWorkForYou.com) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-04-17a.128090.h&s=smoking#g128090.r0)

That chart shows what a bloody disgrace the N.H.S is, it no wonder its going down the pan. Then spent Â£24,000 on advertising for new nurses and then spent Â£22,700,000 telling them they shouldn't smoke! ??? Please letâ??s stop this madness.[/quote]

If ventilation works so well why didn't pubs install adequate ventilation in the first place? This could all have been avoided.

Your to damn right there.

Wayne[/quote]

amberler

05-17-2007, 09:41 AM

Nepalese black

05-20-2007, 09:13 PM

All your links bar a couple are about increased smoking rates, which are down the stupidity of people smoking not the non smoking majority. We wont really know what the full effect this ban will have for a long time yet. These increased smoking rates could be a reaction to what many feel is a persecution - this is of course speculation.

Did you notice the Spanish link and what happened there. However all over the World there has been the natural decline in the smoking preference, but the bans stop this and but them in reverse, and I have showed the Government this and they still will not admit they are wrong this is what gets me.

Here is the Irish chart; the ban stated on 3/04 the percentage of smokers was 23.1 now over three years later itâ??s 25.5, and notice before the ban it had a natural decline.

And look what has happened in Northan Ireland in a few weeks;

Smoking outside ain't no drag for 'smirters' - News - Sunday Life (http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/article2537178.ece)

[/quote]

If pubs and clubs were exempt then it would leave an opening for more litigation in the future as it's supposed to be protecting workers.

The thing is that all the real studies from, HSE, WHO, BMJ, and the Cancer Society themselves say there is hardly any harm in SHS, actually milk has a slightly higher rating then SHS, they have based this ban on estimates, and a report thatâ??s called the SCOTH Report, we call the SCOTH Fable, and some of itâ??s members are also members of ASH, which are anti smoking, I have now found out that the Welsh Assembly, which we call ASS and the DOH, donâ??t even have 83 of the studies I asked them for, which are in the SCOTH Fable, so that means that no one has actually read the so called studies, as the immortal Rigsby once said, stop the World I want to get off.

By the way when I win the Euro Lotto, guess what I am going to buy ??? An Island, and with me being Emperor, King and Government, guess what will be legal ??? hehehe, and guess what your all welcome. [/quote]

I consider vehicle emissions a different debate.

Yes they are different, they are a Billion times worst, only thing is you canâ??t see them, but you can see Tobacco smoke, and 99% of that is water.

DIRECT MEASUREMENT read-outs from BC AirCare laboratories indicate that vehicular emissions 1995 in the Vancouver's Lower Mainland amount to 324,500 tons, or 2 pounds per person per day. How does that compare with 0.5 millionth of a gram per cubic foot of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in a normally ventilated room? [/quote]

I think it's fair to say we are not going to agree on this one :) But I would like to have seen smoking and non smoking premises but that would have involved too much common sense for any government. Smoking pubs would then have been ideal places to start the sale of cannabis I'm just dreaming now :P[/color]

Well we do agree on the separate smoking rooms with ventilation and filtration, and that all we want. Yes when we go to the courts against the Government in the Judicial Review that is all we ask them for separate smoking rooms with ventilation and filtration.

I have a sneaky feeling that 80% of the Government are computer programs, there to make the wrong decision and to wind us up, the Government must be intelligent people, I mean they can all get A+ in maths and English and know how to write a formal letter and all that crap, but have they the common sense and the street wise, no they have not. [/quote]

All we want is the Freedom To Choose (http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk)

Nepalese black

Tom Swierzbinski

05-20-2007, 11:21 PM

Wake up call cigarrettes cigarrettes arent killin the planet transport IS

DD, do a lil research... its not Global warming, its SOLAR warming :)

Anyway, as if the police will have enough time to book everyone who smokes in public after the ban. I for one will still smoke outside, and if the cops want to arrest me, then fine, but Im not giving up MY liberties and MY freedoms just over a damn cigarette. If im out smoking and I see a mother with her child in a buggy or walking next to her, I wait until theyve gone past until I carry on smoking. Its a little bit of common fucking sense that saves the day.

Divadish

05-22-2007, 03:34 PM

we quibble over terms , i think we all agree the planet is warming up yes ? and i know that the earth has it's own natural climate cycles , ice-ages , shifting of polar ice caps , movement of deserts that kind of thing and these cycles will be constant regardless of our existence or not due to the sun and solar activity , but solid scientific study has shown that man-made Co2 emission levels are inexorably linked to this sudden sharp rise in global temperatures even factoring in solar activity such as flares or sunspots and even the sun reversing it's magnetism.So global or solar it looks like the s"*t's gonna hit the fan unless we act now and start reducing emissions, carbon footprint and all that. I think this should be our main priority rather than banning smoking , you can still smoke in public outdoors by the way and yes a bit of common fu"*in sense can save the day . I suppose we won't look as conspicuous stood outside the pub havin a toke

atsar

05-23-2007, 10:54 PM

my brother in law was stopping smoking and doc give him patches,so they get him in every 3 days to test and check he's not smoking,anyway,in the 10 minute walk to his docs along a main road,the doc said he'd taken in the equivalent of 6 cigs from the pollution from cars

but were all missing the point,doesn't matter if we're for or against the ban,we're being told what to fuckin do,and our opinions were never sought,so where does it end?sounds like good beginnings to a dictatorship

DogsBollocks

05-24-2007, 12:32 AM

I Think We ALL Should Give Up Smoking And Then We Would See The Goverment Asking Us to Start Smoking Because Of All The Money They Get From The Manufactures And If No One Smoke Then They Wouldn't Get Any So Let's Fuck The Goverment Everyone Stop Smoking?

Divadish

05-24-2007, 02:01 PM

Tom Swierzbinski

05-24-2007, 06:11 PM

A slow but steady erosion of our civil liberties , democracy my fu"*ing arse , mind you the word democracy seems to have taken on sinister overtones the way Bush and Blair banter it about , and you are right there will be shortfall in revenue as tobacco is heavily taxed ( Â£5 pack of cigs about Â£4.30-ish will go straight to the government ) and benefits to the NHS will be far from immediate. What's next the booze ?

Interesting thing there, the government is thinking about limiting the public to having 3 drinks per pub/bar, and then youre allowed no more.
And my parents think Im crazy for saying that the UK is becoming more and more facist by the day!

Divadish

05-25-2007, 07:05 PM

Nepalese black

05-27-2007, 02:20 PM

From a health standpoint encouraging people to stop smoking is a good idea , it's just the way this legislation has been forced upon us that worries me . I couldn't agree more about the fascist state comment and was not aware of the proposed drink limitations, do you have any more info on this ? and might be worth starting a thread about... nice one

The thing is this is my life not the Governments, if they want to advise me on things all well and good, but at the end of the day itâ??s my choose, so Mr Government, go away, and Mr Government, how fit are you ??? How healthy do you eat ??? How many times do you go to the Gym ??? You look to me that you sit in the Houses of Parliament all day.

I am into fitness and have a resting pulse of under 50, did have it as low as 35ish, and go to the gym about three times per week, and like to eat healthy, but one or three nights per week I love a beer or twelve and a few smokes.

The fitness part of my life is my choose, and I DONâ??T GO TELLING OUR PEOPLE TO DO WHAT I DO, AS IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SIT ON THEIR ASS ALL DAY THATâ??S FINE BY ME, AS ITâ??S THEIR LIFE.[/quote]

Three drinks and you're out: the pub rationing plan-News-UK-TimesOnline (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article757338.ece)

Three drinks and you're out: the pub rationing plan

Marc Horne

ONE of Britainâ??s leading surgeons has called on the government to introduce curbs on the sale of alcohol, limiting the amount that customers can consume per visit to a pub or bar.

John Smith, president of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, believes that such restrictions would be the logical next step to improving the nationâ??s health following the ban on smoking in public buildings.

Smith believes regulations in Britain could save lives while cutting alcohol-related illnesses and violent crime.

â??The legislation to ban smoking in public places is very welcome and a big step forward. The logical thing to recognise now is that smoking is bad for you, as is alcohol,â? he said.

â??Should we now limit the amount of drink that can be served in pubs? If, as a nation, we are serious about trying to prevent illnesses associated with social habits, then this is something that must be considered seriously.

â??I think for a government to follow the American model of saying, for the benefit of each patron, we will provide three drinks only, would be very interesting to look at.â?

Restrictions already operate in some American states. The city council in Santa Monica, California, has powers to impose a three-drink ban in bars while voluntary schemes operate in Virginia, Oregon and Massachusetts.

Last week the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice), which advises on the cost effectiveness of providing treatment on the National Health Service, said patients who endangered their health by smoking, gross overeating or heavy drinking should be denied medical treatment.

Currently guidelines recommend that men should drink no more than four units a day, which is the equivalent of two pints of beer, two glasses of wine or four measures of spirits. Women are advised to drink no more than three units.

Smith, who hopes his views will become the collegeâ??s policy, said that it was up to ministers to decide on the practicalities of a ban.

â??I realise that not everyone is likely to agree with this and there will be those who will claim it would be another example of the nanny state,â? he said.

â??I also realise that the implications commercially for hotels and publicans would be huge, because we all know that they make a lot of their money through mark-ups on drink. But it is the logical follow-up to banning smoking in pubs and other public places. As a wine lover I would be prepared to lead by example.â?

Professor Roger Williams, the consultant surgeon who operated on George Best, the footballer who died last month after years of alcohol-related illnesses and a liver transplant, said that he supported Smith in principle.

â??I am in favour of anything that will restrict the availability of alcohol to people, thereby the amount they drink,â? said Williams.

â??I would doubt that it is a practical measure, but it reinforces the need to restrict alcohol, rather than make it more freely available.â?

He added that other measures to cut drinking could include giving clear information on the number of units of alcohol in each drink and increasing taxes. â??Any suggestions to reduce alcohol intake are good,â? he said.

Professor Ian Gilmore, chairman of the Royal College of Physiciansâ?? alcohol committee, said: â??Not allowing people to consume more than three drinks in a pub is a wonderful solution if it was practical. We need to change our culture. At the moment we donâ??t understand why weâ??ve got the situation we have.â?

Paul Waterson, chief executive of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, said such a ban would be unworkable.

â??One thing I found during the smoking debate was that some of the medical profession lack common sense when it comes to dealing with real issues in the real world,â? he said.

â??The idea of restricting the number of drinks is unworkable, impractical and would erode personal freedoms.â?

Wayne[qoute]

Divadish

05-30-2007, 11:17 AM

Here we go again , just another example of the government trying to run every aspect of our lives, it pisses me off so much that they bring in these legislations in our "own best interests". F"*k that , i want the right to choose.Regarding the comment made by N.I.C.E. , if as they say treatment was to be withheld to certain groups in society then one would assume that these people would then have the option of opting out of national insurance contributions.Further to the N.I.C.E. comments,where does one draw the line on who has what treatments ? ,people involved in accidents whilst speeding,people injured or harmed whilst drunk,extreme sports participants.Would it be a case of wherever someone has put themselves (knowingly)in a hazardous situation and come to harm they would be denied treatment ?This country is becoming so fu"*ed up it's unreal

B.Basher

05-31-2007, 02:18 PM

You guys understand your still allowed to smoke right?

Divadish

06-01-2007, 09:59 AM

You obviously have not read the other posts otherwise you wouldn't have asked that question. Unless it's a joke in which case my ribs are aching (sorry for the sarcasm).

B.Basher

06-01-2007, 02:24 PM

People treat is as if they will be lynched by police for smoking a cigarette. It's not a case of trying to get you to be healthier, it's a step towards healthier social venues and restaurants, which makes perfect sense. You want to smoke, well... yeah, you can, just go outside. Like when your in the workplace, you go out the back and have a fag. Barely taking away much freedom if you ask me, and I fucking hate it when i'm trying to eat in a restaurant and your dirty fag smoke is blowing into my face. Trying to sue the government for passing a law like this is a joke, it's the most effective step in decades towards recognising the sheer, utter pointless existence of cigarettes for the consumer.
I agree with the anger expressed towards banning it in pubs and clubs, that's where people usually go to smoke, however I believe the outcome will be very good in the long run when people start to realise they're not only smoking less but having a much better time in such venues with the lack of intoxicating air.
Anyway, good luck with, you know, taking the entire government to court over a law that is already in full effect...

Divadish

06-03-2007, 08:50 AM

Head + brick wall , head + brick wall , read the posts bb come up with something new

Nocturnal Stoner

06-03-2007, 10:41 AM

I hope it stops little kids who think they're cool by smoking outside not start in the first place.

B.Basher

06-03-2007, 01:19 PM

I don't need to come up with something new, it's a valid point.

B.Basher

06-03-2007, 01:34 PM

One thing I will say is I find this whole process completely hypocritical. The goverment ban cigarette advertising. Why? "Because cigarettes are fatally bad for you and we don't want to condone their use." Now they ban smoking in indoor public venues. Why? "Because cigarettes are fatally bad for you and we don't want to condone their use."

These actions are utterly void of sense. The reasons for the passing of these laws are valid enough to ban cigarettes altogether, yet the government will never admit they thrive off the tax collected from thousands of packs sold every day. They collect on your cancer ridden lungs. But hey, we don't wanna condone it or anything.

And it's laughable this group of yours (nebaleseblack) is attempting to get donations for this 'cause'. I think I would much rather donate my money to a more worthy cause, perhaps one when I can help save lives as opposed to put millions more in danger so addicts can get their fix more conveniently. Do any smokers that disagree with the ban ever take their personal health into consideration? You know, "freedoms" aside, the fact is your better off smoking less. It's like shouting at the nurse for trying to give you morphene. The careful (and popular) words "erosion of our civil liberties" suggest that some kind of bad will come of this.

Nepalese black

06-22-2007, 11:24 PM

Sorry my posts are long.

One thing I will say is I find this whole process completely hypocritical. The goverment ban cigarette advertising. Why? "Because cigarettes are fatally bad for you and we don't want to condone their use." Now they ban smoking in indoor public venues. Why? "Because cigarettes are fatally bad for you and we don't want to condone their use."

These actions are utterly void of sense. The reasons for the passing of these laws are valid enough to ban cigarettes altogether, yet the government will never admit they thrive off the tax collected from thousands of packs sold every day. They collect on your cancer ridden lungs. But hey, we don't wanna condone it or anything.

And it's laughable this group of yours (nebaleseblack) is attempting to get donations for this 'cause'. I think I would much rather donate my money to a more worthy cause, perhaps one when I can help save lives as opposed to put millions more in danger so addicts can get their fix more conveniently.

I see lots of old people that have smoked all their lives, and they are fine and happy.

I think if you did donate and we won or designated smoking rooms with ventilation and filtration you would help people to stop start smoking in the first place, as all bans do is to get more people to smoke;

THE IRISH BAN STARTED ON 1/3/04 AND IT WAS 23.1% OF THE PEOPLE SMOKED, NOW IT'S FAR HIGHER, AS ALL THE KIDS AND PEOPLE SEE THE PEOPLE SMOKING OUTSIDE THE PUBS AND THINK IT'S COOL, SO THEY START TO SMOKE, IT'S NOW 25.4% OF THE PEOPLE THAT SMOKE.[/QUOTE]

Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers after the ban,

Office of Tobacco Control (http://www.otc.ie/chart.asp?image=fig_1.1.jpg)

Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers (http://freedom2choose.co.uk/news1.php?id=39)

Smoking outside ain't no drag for 'smirters' - News - Sunday Life (http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/article2537178.ece)

New Zealand smoke more after the ban,

Scoop: Smoking Prevalence Falling Too Slowly (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0612/S00091.htm)

Italians smoking more despite national ban,

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > World -- Italians smoking more despite national ban (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070130-0636-italy-smoking-.html)

Spain: Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs and there are 1/2 million *****less***** smoking; There Â½ Million less smoking in Spain??? Why, because Spain lets you smoke in the bars and clubs.

Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs: poll (http://www.tobacco.org/news/239087.html)

New York has a bar smoking ban, so Smoker Numbers Rise,

Smoker Numbers Rise, but Mayor Lauds Other City Statistics - September 15, 2006 - The New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/article/39753)

Smoking rates up in Scotland,

Money | Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/11/01/cnsmoking01.xml)

Do any smokers that disagree with the ban ever take their personal health into consideration? You know, "freedoms" aside, the fact is your better off smoking less. It's like shouting at the nurse for trying to give you morphene. The careful (and popular) words "erosion of our civil liberties" suggest that some kind of bad will come of this.

I myself am not a big smoker, I only smoke on my three nightly visits to my pub, and am very into fitness, and at 46 have a resting pulse of about 55, in my youth my pulse was down to about 35, however I donâ??t think smoking like I do or even smoking 20 a day is that bad for you, I think itâ??s all to do with what genes your born with, and I think the Government and the Doctors just love to blame the higher cancers and asthmas on smoking when it just cant be, they try to brainwash people, and do a very good job.[/QUOTE]

Why not smoking you may ask, Because UK Government statistics from 1970 to 2006 show smoking is in decline worldwide. in 1970, 45% of the UK smoked, now in 2006, only 25% smoke, that is means the total smokers in the UK in the last 36 years has nearly halved, HOWEVER cancer is on the rise, Between 1971 and 2003, the age-standardised incidence of cancer increased by around 17 per cent in males and 40 per cent in females.

Visit the following site it will give you tables of the highest smoking prevalence and the highest lung cancer prevalence, the higher percentage of smokers per country, the lower the cancer rate, the two don't match up; cancer we â??thoughtâ? was more likely to be caused by food or individual genes, however we now know itâ??s not smoking, but diesel, and the diesel article ties up with our other articles, unless someone can come up with another idea.[/QUOTE]

Smokers Prevalences, Lung Cancer Death Rates and Life Expectancies (http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages.htm)

So you have not got to be Einstein, to work out something else is causing the cancer, and as from statistics its not tobacco.

The real cause of cancer, and mostly lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that: tobacco smoke contains only very low% of carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens; that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns; that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways; that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades; and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more, we here at the big debate, think this is a breakthrough, and the REAL reason for the higher cancer, when there has been a natural decline in the people smoking thought the years, blaming the higher cancer on smoking, is not true, when there are over a million less smoking from the 60â??s and cancer is up, is just does not add up, diesel fumes does add up.
[/QUOTE]

Do Diesels, Not Smoking, Cause Lung Cancer? - Second Opinions (http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html)

Apart from already mentioning the lack of substantive evidence that second hand smoke causes harm, I know people of the 'baby boom' generation, conceived and brought up after the second world war when just about everyone smoked. Our house was filled with tobacco smoke as my parents, their friends and my older siblings and their friends all smoked. Wherever you went people smoked so you could not avoid it. Therefore IF second hand smoke is SO harmful however did we all survive? Why haven't people in my generation been falling like flies? How come people are living longer than ever? And how come, as smoking has decreased, childhood asthma, and other allergies are increasing at a tremendous rate? Something else is causing this and it certainly isn't tobacco smoking.

Finally, one of the myriad of conditions ascribed to smoking is infertility. It certainly didn't affect the parents of the 'baby boom' generation.[/QUOTE]

Wayne